Furthermore, the government already legislates what we eat and put in our bodies, and for the most part, that’s a good thing. The government passes and enforces the regulations that put strict limits on the amount of foreign contaminants that can be present in foods. There are food quality standards that producers must meet in order to market their food. You cannot rely on the manufacturer having the individual’s best interests in mind when they are producing and marketing a new product, because a manufacturer’s best interest is the bottom line. Most of the companies that supply our food, cosmetics, cleaning products, and everything else we use in our daily lives will do anything legal to cut costs without sacrificing too much quality (for example, replacing sugar with HFCS). If you don’t want them to do this, the government has to make it illegal or not cost-effective, which may involve taxing the crap out of the item or one of its precursors.

I agree that the financial burden should lie mostly on the manufacturer, not the consumer, but high cost is a generally effective deterrent. Just look at the drop in car use that occurred last summer when gas rose above $4 a gallon in the States (I know, we’re spoiled).

THE main reason for my decision had to do with convenience. After France passed a law last year making it illegal to smoke inside anywhere, smoking became inconvenient and even downright unpleasant. I could no longer have my aperitif and a smoke at the bar or resto, or a coffee and a smoke at a cafe or sit at my desk and write and smoke. If I could still do those things, I would still be smoking even if cigarettes were 10+ euros a pack. And all the education in the world from grade school up didn’t do a damn thing to get me to stop. When it was pleasurable and easy to do, I did it. When it became hard to do and meant real inconvenience on my part, I quit.

Are soda drinkers like cigarette smokers? I have no idea since I don’t indulge :-) But could we think of ways that would make soda drinking inconvenient and nudge people toward better choices?

I did a blog post about the tricks food companies play with the nutritional information table. They add all sorts of artificial ingredients, knowing that most consumers check the nutritional table, not the ingredients. So you end up with artificial sweeteners, isolated fiber, partially hydrogenated oils (but not enough to be .5g per serving), and a littany of chemicals designed to trigger all of our body’s normal responses to sweet and salty foods (cravings).

Ugh.

No wonder I do the majority of my shopping in the produce aisle.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5009316.shtml

Of course it is not going to fix the obesity epidemic, but it may at least help reduce some people’s soda intake. This is purely anecdotal, but I know a few people who quit smoking when cigarettes became ridiculously expensive.

Just like the federal tax incentive for renewable energy technologies is a worthy investment because it forces us in a better direction, I think a similar line of reasoning can be used to justify forcing companies to make healthier food by either eliminating or taxing crappy ingredients (like trans fatty acids, high fructose corn syrup, etc.).